FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCT 13, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 21 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 88 -4 02 -3 50 SAIDA RAHMATHODJAEVNA AZIZOVA , RUSTAM NAZRILLAEVICH AZIZOVA, FARIDA RUSTAMOVNA AZIZOVA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne rs , vers us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 1 3, 2 01 1) Befo re WILSON, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM: Sai daAziz ov a (“ Aziz ov a”), the lea d p et it io ne r, an d R us ta m Aziz ov (“ Ru st am ”) an d F ari daAziz ov a (“ Fari da ”), the de riv at iv e p et it io ne rs (co ll ect iv el y“ Pet it io ne rs ”), s eekrev ie w of the Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’ (“ BIA”) ord er affi rm in g the im

m ig rat io n ju dg e’s (“ IJ ”) d en ia l o f th ei r ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m an d withh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r Imm ig rat io n a ndNati on al ity Act (“ INA”) § § 2 08 , 24 1, 8 U.S.C. §§ 11 58 , 12 31 . Asid e fro m pa ss in g re fere nc es , Pet it io ne rs ’ ap pe ll at e b rie f do es no t ra is e an y arg um en ts reg ard in g re li ef u nd er the Uni te d Nati on s C on ve nt io n Ag ai ns t To rtu re an d Othe r Cru el , Inh um an , or Deg rad in g Treat m en t o r Pu ni sh m en t (“ CAT”), 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 6( c); th us , th ey ha ve ab an do ne d tha t i ss ue on ap pe al an d we d o n otad dr es s i t. Pra do -Go nz al ezv. I.N.S. , 75 F.3d63 1, 6 32 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ) (fi nd in g tha t a p et it io ne r ab an do ns an is su e o n app eal wher e h e d oe s n otsee k ju di ci al rev ie w of tha t i ss ue inhi s b rie f). Pet it io ne rs rai se th ree i ss ue s o n app eal . Firs t, the y arg ue th atth e IJ ’s and BIA’s adve rs e cre di bi li ty find in g was cle arl y erro ne ou s b ecau se itwas b as edon he ars ay ev id en ce fr om

anov ers eas in ve st ig at io n. Se co nd , th ey co nt en d tha t the ir fo rm er co un se l was in effe ct iv e b ecau se he fai le d t o o bjec t t o a ll eg ed ly in adm is si bl e ev id en ce an d the in te rp ret er’s al le ge dl y fau lty trans la ti on du rin g the ir rem ov al pro ceed in gs , whi chth ey ass ertaffe ct edth e o ut co m e o f th ei r cas e. Thi rd , Pet it io ne rs subm itth atth ey were d ep riv edth ei r du e p ro ces s ri gh t t o aful l an d fa ir he ari ng be cau se of f

au lty tra ns la ti on . BACKGRO UND

2Pet it io ne rs are n at iv e-b orn c it iz en s o f Uzb ek is tan s eek in g a sylum pro te ct io n ba se d o n the Aziz ov a’s cl ai m s. Pet it io ne rs reque stasylu m on th e g ro un ds th at Aziz ov a was for cedto fle e Uzb ek is tan a fte r be in g p ers ecu te d b y th e g ov ern m en t ba se d o n h er p ol it ic al op in io n. Azi zo vatau gh t m athe m at ic s atth e Po lytech ni c Uni ve rs ity

Ly ceu m inTash ke ntst art in g i n 1 99 5. In20 02 , Azizo vares earc he d a co nc ep t ca ll ed“ cri ti cal th in ki ng ,” pr es en te d i t t o h er co ll eag ue s, an d i nt ro du cedit in to th e cu rri cu lu m

with p erm is si on of h er s up erv is or . In Ap ril 20 04 , Azizo vawas in st ru ct edby the Depa rtment o f In te rn al Affai rs of t he Nati on al Secu rit y Serv ic e to ceas e u si ng cri ti cal th in ki ng or h er em pl oym en t wo ul d b e te rm in at ed . In J un e 20 04 , Azizo vasp ok e o utag ai ns t the Uzbe k g ov ern m en t i n c la ss du rin g alec tu re on th e co m

pa rat iv e m in im

um wage . She cla im s tha t h er re m ark s wer e sp ark edby he r an ge r atth e rec en t d eath o f he r br ot he r-i n- law who , sh e b el ie ve d, was arre st ed du e to hi s p ol it ic al be li efs an d wh o, s he be li ev ed , di edinanUzbe k p ris on . One weekaft er h er l ectur e, th e p ol ic e arr es te d Azi zo vaan d d em an de d $1 ,00 0 fr om

Ru st am , herhu sb an d, fo r he r rel eas e. He ga th eredth e m on ey , and sh e was rel eas ed . Azizo vates ti fie d tha t s he was o rd eredto res ig n o n S ep te m be r 2, 20 04 , alt ho ug h a n i nv es ti ga ti on by the Depa rtment o f Hom el an d S ecu rit y (“ DHS”) th ro ug h the Am eri canEm ba ss y inUzbe ki st anpro du cedev id en ce tha t s he res ig ne d on Sep te m

be r 2, 2 00 3. 3InJan uary 20 05 , Azizo vaan d afri en d wer e arr es te d, h el d fo r fi ve day s, an d as se ss eda fi ne of $ 50 0. Azi zo vadi d n otm en ti on be at in gs du rin g thi s co nf in em en t i n e ithe r he r as y lu m ap pl ic at io n o r in he r te st im on y on di rect ex am in at io n. Ho wev er, o n c ro ss -ex am in at io n Azi zo vates ti fie d tha t s he ha d b een be at enby the po li ce dur in g thi s d et en ti on . Addres si ng th e d is crep an cy , sh e st at ed th atitwas d iff

ic ul t fo r he r to rem em

be r wha t h ap pe ne d. InJune 20 05 th e p ol ic e rai de d P et it io ne rs ’ ho m e an d “ to okev erythi ng ,” in cl ud in g the “ workb oo k” Aziz ov a k ep t wi th off

ic ia l s ta m ps no ti ng th e st artan d e ndda te s o f he r go ve rn m en t em pl oym en t. The y

als o thr eat en edRu st am

at h is bu si ne ss an d t ol d h im th atun le ss he pa id$1 ,00 0 p er m on th , hi s fam il y wou ldbe ha rm ed . Azizo vapro du ceda co py of he r workb oo k i nd ic at in g ares ig na ti on date of S ep te m be r 2, 2 00 4 t o the IJ i n Sep te m be r 20 09 . She st at edth athe r daug ht er wh o i s s ti ll inUzbe ki st anha d a co py andsen t i t t o h er o ve r th e In te rn et . Fari dawas a dm it te d t o the Uni te d S ta te s o n Au gu st18 , 20 05 on a no ni m m ig ran t ex ch an ge -s tu de ntvi sa , andinJan ua ry 20 06 Aziz ov a at te m

pt edto vi si t Fa rid a. Aziz ov a was de ta in edinth e ai rp ort, tran sf erre d t o In te rn al Affai rs , an d i m pr is on ed . In h er as lyum

tes ti m on y , Azizo vates ti fie d tha t s he ha d b een be at enon ce dur in g thi s p eri od . In the he ari ng be fo re the IJ, s he tes ti fie d tha t s he was be at enon ce p er m on th , if n oton ce p er week . Whe n c on fro nt edwith the 4co nt rad ic to ry tes ti m on y , sh e st at edth athe r as y lu m ap pl ic at io n c on ta in edon ly m ajorev en ts . Int ern al Affai rs de m an de d $ 4,0 00 forhe r rel eas e. Afte r si x m on th s, Ru st am was abl e to ga th er the m on ey an d s he was re le as ed . Rus ta m pa idpe op le to bri ng Aziz ov a th ro ug h the Uzbe k a irp ort, an d s o s he was abl e to trave l t o the Uni te d S tate s i n S ep te m

be r 20 06 . On Se pt em

be r 17 , 20 06 , Azizo vaan d R us ta m were ad m it te d t o the Uni te d St at es on no ni m

m ig ran t v is as . In the sp rin g o f 20 07 , Azizo vafil edanap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m

pro te ct io n, l is ti ng he r hu sb an d R us ta m an d h er d au gh te r Fari daas de riv at iv e b en efi ci ari es . They ap pe aredinIm m ig rat io n C ou rt i n Au gu stan d Sep te m be r of 20 09 . At th e co nc lu si on of t he he ari ng s, the IJ d en ie d Azi zo va ’s ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m , withh ol di ng of r em ov al , andCAT rel ie f. Aftera ti m el y no ti ce o f ap pe al , th e BIA d is m is se d Azi zo va ’s app eal an d e nt ereda fi na l o rd er o f rem ov al on Decem

be r 22 , 20 10 . As p artof t he in ve st ig at io n i nt o the m eri ts of t he cla im , th e IJreque st edth at DHS ve rif

y Aziz ov a’s st ory . As pa rt o f th is in ve st ig at io n, the y co nt act edth e em ba ss y inUzbe ki st an . This in ve st ig at io n l edto ev id en ce i nc on si st en t wi th Aziz ov a’s st at em en ts . The Hu m anRes ou rces de pa rtment a t the Ly ceu m in di cat ed th atAziz ov a’s supe rv is orha d b eenterm in at edinDecem be r 20 03 or J anua ry

20 04 , no t i n the sp rin g o f 20 04 , andth atAziz ov a h adres ig ne d i n S ep te m be r 20 03 , no t i n 5Sep te m

be r 20 04 . Thes e fac ts were s ta te d i n a n e m ai l fr om Rach el W al ds te in , with a St at e Dep art m en t em ai l ad dr es s, t o Th om as Ayz, a DHS em pl oyee work in g a t th e Mi am i Offi ce o f Ch ie f Co un se l. Ay z te st ifi edbe fo re the IJ a s t o the co nt en ts of th is em ai l. STANDARD OF REVIEW W e rev ie w th e BIA’s fac tu al de te rm in at io ns un de r th e subs tant ia l ev id en ce te st , andaffi rm

th e BIA’s d eci si on if i t i s s up po rte d b y reas on ab le , subs tant ia l, an d pr ob at iv e ev id en ce o n the reco rdco ns id eredas awho le . D-Muh ume d v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 38 8 F .3d81 4, 8 17 –1 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) . To th e ex te ntth atth e BIA’s de ci si on was b as edona le ga l d et erm in at io n, o urrev ie w is de no vo . Id. at 8 17 . W e al so rev ie w con st itut io na l ch al le ng es de no vo . La pa ixv. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 60 5 F.3 d 1 13 8, 1 14 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) (pe r cu ria m). W e rev ie w th e BIA’s d eci si on as the fin al jud gm en t. Rui z v. Go nz al es , 47 9 F.3 d 7 62 , 76 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . Howev er, “ [i]ns of ar as th e Bo ardad op ts th e IJ ’s reas on in g, we wi ll rev ie w th e IJ ’s dec is io n a s wel l.” Na jj ar v. Ash cr of

t , 25 7 F .3d 12 62 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . An al ie n wh o a rri ve s i n o r is pre se ntinth e Uni te d S tate s m ay ap pl y for as y lu m . INA § 2 08 (a)( 1) , 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (a)( 1) . The At to rn ey Gene ral or Secr et ary of

th e Dep art m en t o f Hom el an d S ecu rit y ha s d is cret io n t o g ran t as y lu m 6if t he ali enm eet s the INA’ s d efi ni ti onof a“refu ge e.” INA § 2 08 (b )(1 ), 8 U.S.C.

§ 1 15 8( b) (1 ). A “refu ge e” i s an y pe rs on who is ou ts id e an y co un try of s uc h p ers on ’s nat io na li ty . . . andwho is un ab le or u nwi ll in g t o re tu rnto , andis un ab le or un wil li ng to av ai l h im se lf o r he rs el f of th e p ro te ct io n o f, th atco un try be cau se of p ers ecu ti on or awell -fo un de d fe ar o f pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t o f rac e, rel ig io n, n at io na li ty, m em be rs hi p i n apa rti cu lar so ci al gro up , or p ol it ic al op in io n . . . . 8 U.S.C. § 11 01 (a)( 42 )(A). The asylu m ap pl ic an t b ears th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g tha t he qu al ifi es as a“ refu ge e.” 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 3( a). To m eetth is bu rd en , “ th e ap pl ic an t m

us t, wi th sp eci fic an d c red ib le ev id en ce, es tabl is h (1 ) pa stpe rs ecu ti on on acco un t o f a s ta tu to ril y pro te ct edgro un d o r (2 ) a wel l-f ou nd edfearof f

utur e pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t o f a p ro te ct edgro un d.” Meji a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 49 8 F .3d 12 53 , 12 56 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . To b e wit hh el d fr om

rem ov al un de r th e INA, anali enm us t s ho w th athi s li fe o r free do m

wou ldbe th reat en edon acco un t o f a p ro te ct edgro un d. Sa nc he z v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 39 2 F .3d43 4, 4 37 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (p er cu ria m). An al ie n se ek in g wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al m us t s ho w th atitis m or e li ke ly than n otth atsh e wil l b e p ers ecu te d o r to rtu redup on be in g re tu rn edto he r co un try. Sep ulved a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 40 1 F .3d12 26 , 12 32 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (p er cu ria m). Becaus e th is st an da rdis m or e st rin ge ntth anth e st an da rdforasylu m , an a li enwho fai ls to

7es tabl is h e li gi bi li ty und er the refu ge e st atus is ge ne ral ly precl ud edfro m qu al ifyin g fo r withh ol di ng of r em ov al . Id. I. W e rev ie w cred ib il ity

de te rm in at io ns un de r th e subs tant ia l ev id en ce t es t. Rui z v. U.S. Att’

y Gen . , 44 0 F .3d12 47 , 12 55 (11 thCir . 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m). The tri er o f fac t m

us t d et erm in e cre di bi li ty, an d we wi ll no t s ub st itut e o urjud gm en t fo r th atof t he BIA wit h re sp ectto cred ib il ity fin di ng s. D-Muh ume d , 38 8 F .3dat 8 18 . Und er the hi gh ly defer en ti al subs tant ia l ev id en ce t es t, we wi ll no t re ve rs e an adm in is tra ti ve cred ib il ity fin di ng un le ss “ th e ev id en ce co m pe ls a reas on ab le fact fin de r to fin d o th erwi se .” Ch en v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 46 3 F .3d12 28 , 12 31 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (ci ta ti on an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Whi le anadve rs e cre di bi li ty find in g m ay be su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt d en ia l o f as y lu m , su cha de te rm in at io n d oe s n otrel ie ve th e fac t fi nd er o f hi s dut y to co ns id er o th er ev id en ce p res en te d b y th e ap pl ic an t. Id

. ; For gu e v. U.S. At t’yGen. , 40 1 F .3d12 82 , 12 87 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Howev er, “ [o ]nce an adve rs e cre di bi li ty fin di ng is m ad e, th e b ur de n i s o n the ap pl ic an t al ie n t o s ho w th atth e . . . cred ib il ity de ci si on was n otsupp orte d b y sp eci fic , cog en t re as on s o r was no t b as edon subs tant ia l ev id en ce.” For gu e , 40 1 F .3dat 1 28 7 (c it at io n andin te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o mit te d) . 8“ In di cat io ns of r el iabl e te st im on y in cl ud e co ns is te nc y

on di rect ex am in at io n, co ns is te nc y with the writ te n app li cat io n, an d the ab se nc e o f em be ll is hm en ts .” Rui

z , 44 0 F .3dat 1 25 5. Th e al ie n’s t es ti m on y , if cr ed ib le , m ay be su ffi ci en t t o s us ta inth e b ur de n o f pr oo f fo r as y lu m witho utco rro bo rat io n. 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 3( a); For

gu e , 40 1 F .3dat 1 28 7. “ The weak er an ap pl ic an t’s te st im on y , ho wev er, the gre at er the ne edfor co rro bo rat iv e ev id en ce.” Y an g v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 41 8 F .3d11 98 , 12 01 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). The REAL ID Act o f 20 05 am en de d the INA’ s as y lu m pro vi si on s u nd er INA § 2 08 (b )(1 )(B) (ii i), 8 U.S.C. § 1 15 8( b) (1 )(B) (ii i), t o p ro vi de th atanadve rs e cred ib il ity

de te rm in at io n c anbe ba se d o n i nc on si st en ci es , in accu raci es , or fal se ho od s, re ga rd le ss of wh ethe r th ey rel at e to th e h eartof a n app li can t’s cl ai m . Pub. L. No. 1 09 -1 3, § 10 1( a)(3 ), (d ), 11 9 S ta t. 3 02 , 30 3– 05 (20 05 ). Inth is cas e, th e BIA uph el d the IJ’s ad ve rs e cre di bi li ty find in g b as edon a nu m be r of om is si on s, i nc on si st en ci es , andco nt rad ic ti on s among Aziz ov a’s te st im on y , asylum ap pl ic at io n, an d o ve rs eas in ve st ig at io ns . W ei gh in g thi s ev id en ce, the IJ f

oundth atAziz ov a la ck edcred ib il ity du e to th e cu m

ul at iv e m at eri al in co ns is te nc ie s. Th e IJba se d h is adve rs e cre di bi li ty find in g o n: in co ns is te ntev id en ce as to th e d at e o f Azi zo va ’s res ig na ti on an d aut he nt ic ity of le tt ers fro m

he r fo rm er em

pl oyer; Azi zo va ’s con tra di ct ory st at em en ts reg ard in g 9he r em

pl oym en t s ta tu s; Aziz ov a’s of feri ng th e d eath c ert ifi cat e o f he r fathe r-i n- law rathe r th anth atof h er b ro th er-i n- law; Azi zo va ’s pre se nt in g e vi de nc e fro m he r workb oo k wh ensh e cl ai m editha d b eensei zedby the go ve rn m en t; an d Aziz ov a’s curs ory

ex pl an at io n o f th e “ cri ti cal th in ki ng ” cu rri cu lu m , im pl em en ta ti on of wh ic h s he all eg es is on e o f th e b as es of h er p ers ecu ti on . W e fin d tha t s ub st an ti al ev id en ce s up po rts th e d et erm in at io n b y th e BIA an d the IJ t ha t Aziz ov a’s te st im on y

was n otcred ib le . The BI A’ s fi nd in g tha t Azi zo va ’s tes ti m on y was in cred ib le , to ge th er wi th th e in su ffi ci en t co rro bo rat iv e ev id en ce tha t s he subm it te d, d o n otco m

pe l a r ev ers al of t he BIA’s de ci si on to de ny reli ef.

II . Purs uantto th e Fi fthAm en dm en t Du e Pro ces s C laus e, “ [a]li en s en joy th e rig htto th e eff

ect iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l i n d ep orta ti onpro ceed in gs .” Mej ia Rod ri gu ezv. Reno , 17 8 F .3d11 39 , 11 46 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (ci tati on om itte d) (in vo lv in g a n app li cat io n fo r di sc ret io na ry su sp en si on of d ep ortati on ). “ [T]o es tabl is h the in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l i n the co nt ex t o f a d ep orta ti on he ari ng , an a li enm

us t es tabl is h tha t h is or h er co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie ntto th e p oi ntth atitim pi ng edup on th e fu nd am en ta l fa irn es s o f th e h eari ng su chth atth e al ie n was un ab le to reas on ab ly pres en t h is or h er ca se .” Dak an e v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 37 1 F .3d77 1, 7 74 –7 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) (ci ta ti on an d i nt ern al 10qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . In ad di ti on , a pe ti ti on er s eek in g t o re op enhe r

pr oc eed in gs du e to in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l m us t s ho w th atco un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce was so de fic ie ntth atitm ay have affe ct edth e o ut co m e o f th e pr oc eed in gs . Id. at 7 75 . W e h av e h el d tha t an att orne y ’s def ic ie ntrep res en tati on do es no t d ep riv e an al ie n o f du e p ro ces s i f th e in ad equa te rep res en tati on on ly prev en ts hi m fro m be in g el ig ib le forpu rel y

di sc ret io nary

rel ie f fro m

rem ov al . Mej ia Rod

ri gu ez , 17 8 F .3d at11 46 , 11 48 . Howev er, al ie ns do ha ve a pr ot ect edin te res t i n p et it io ni ng for as y lu m . Hat ia n Ref

ug ee Ctr. v. S

mith , 67 6 F .2d10 23 , 10 38 (5th C ir. Un itB 19 82 ) (fi nd in g “ in th e fed eral reg ul at io ns est ab li sh in g a n a sylum pro cedur e . . . a clea r in te ntto gra ntali en s the rig htto subm itan d the op po rtu ni ty to s ub st an ti at e th ei r cl ai m forasylu m ”). Whi le th e g ran t o f as y lu m is a m at te r of

di sc ret io n l y in g wi th th e Att orne y

Gene ral , hi s d is cret io n i s n otun li mit edas i t i s i n p ur el y di sc ret io na ry rel ie f fro m

rem ov al . INA § 2 42 (b )(4 )(D), 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 2( b) (4 )(D) (“ The Att orne y Gene ral ’s di sc ret io na ry

jud gm en t wh ethe r to gra nt[as y lu m rel ie f] sha ll be co nc lu si ve un le ss m an ife st ly con tra ry to th e la w andanab us e o f di sc ret io n.” ). Thu s, the BIA erre d i n fi nd in g tha t the Pet it io ne rs ’ in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m

was b arre d due to th e d is cret io nary na ture o f as y lu m .

11Nev erthe le ss , Pet it io ne rs ’ in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m ba se d o n th e n on -d is cret io na ry

withh ol di ng of r em ov al was h eardby the BIA. Becaus e th e Pet it io ne rs ’ as y lu m

an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al cla im s ar e p red ic at edon th e sa m e he ari ng an d the same facts , th e BIA’s fai lu re t o a dd res s the ir i ne ffec ti ve ass is tanc e of co un se l cl ai m

forasylu m

is no t re as on to rem an d. Se e Mic co su kee T ri be of In di an s o f Fla. v. Kr au s-

Ander so n C on st . Co. , 60 7 F .3d12 68 , 12 74 n.1 1 (1 1t h C ir. 20 10 ) (n ot in g tha t re m an d i s fu ti le when th e o pi ni on ex pl or es all po ss ib il it ie s o f th e co m pl ai na nt ’s all eg at io ns ). Pet it io ne rs ’ in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m fai ls be cau se th ey

di d no t s ho w th atth ei r fo rm er co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was so de fic ie ntth atitm ay ha ve affe ct edth e o ut co m e o f th e p ro ceed in gs , no r di d the y sh ow tha t fo rm er co un se l’s act io ns pre

jud ic edth e o ut co m e. Se e Dak an e v. U.S. At t’yGen. , 39 9 F .3d12 69 , 12 74 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (p er cu ria m). The Pet it io ne rs ’ fir stba si s fo r th ei r cl ai m is a fai lu re t o o bjec t t o e vi de nc e co nt ai ni ng m

ul ti pl e h ears ay . To fi ndin effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l, we m us t fin d b ot h tha t co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt , andth atth is de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce re su lt edinpre jud ic e aff ect in g the ou tc om e o f th e p ro ceed in gs . Ass um in g ar

gu en do th atco un se l’s fa il ur e to ob ject t o the em ai l i n wh ic h the Dep artm en t o f St at e o ffi ci al pro vi de d i nf orm at io n s ta ti ng th atAziz ov a res ig ne d 12on e y ear p rio r to th e d at e sh e cl ai m s amoun te d t o d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce,

Pet it io ne rs ha ve no t s ho wn tha t the ou tc om e o f th ei r cas e was pre jud ic edby suc h a fin di ng . As st at edab ov e, Aziz ov a’s res ig na ti on da te was o ne of the in co ns is te nc ie s upo n wh ic h the IJ b as edhi s cr ed ib il ti y fin di ng , bu t n otth e o nl y on e. Add it io na ll y , Pet it io ne rs arg ue th atth ei r co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to ob ject t o faul ty tran sl at io n. Pe ti ti on ers ag ai n fa il to est ab li sh th atth ey were pr ejud ic edby fail ur e to ob ject t o the tra ns lati on . They ha ve in di cat edne ithe r wha t th e ru li ng on anob

jecti on wou ldha ve be en , no r ho w itwou ldha ve ch an ge d the res ul t o f th e cas e. The a dv ers e cre di bi li ty find in g was pre m is edno t o nl y on in co ns is te nc ie s i n the tes ti m on y at t ria l, b utals o o n o m is si on s an d i nc on si st en ci es be twee n i nf

orm at io n fr om

va rio us so ur ces . The refo re, we d o n otfin d tha t the pe ti ti on ers m etth e st an da rdto sh ow in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l. II I.

“ The pre se nc e o f a co m

pe te ntin te rp ret er i s i m

po rtantto th e fu nd am en ta l fai rn es s o f a h eari ng , if the ali encan no t s pe akEng li sh flu en tl y .” Mat te r o f To mas , 19 I. & N. Dec. 46 4, 4 65 (BIA 1 98 7) . There is no du e p ro ces s v io la ti onwher e an in te rp ret er tran sl at edall th e que st io ns ask edof t he ali enan d the re was no 13co m

pl ai ntby the pe ti ti on er’s atto rn ey at t he he ari ng th atth e h eari ng was u nf ai r or th atth e p et it io ne r was un aware of wh atwas tran sp iri ng . So ar es v. I.N.S . , 44 9 F .2d 62 1, 6 23 (5t h C ir. 1 97 1) . 1 Bec au se anin te rp ret er was pre se ntat t he pro ceed in gs an d tran sl at edall th e qu es ti on s, an d P et it io ne rs ’ fo rm er at to rn ey di d n otco m

pl ai n tha t Azi zo vawas un aware of wh atwas tran sp iri ng du rin g the pro ceed in gs or m ak e an y ob jecti on s t o th e tr an sl at io n, the re was no du e p ro ces s v io la ti on . Se e S oa res , 44 9 F .2dat 6 23 . CONCLUSI ON Acco rd in gl y , up on rev ie w of the reco rdan d c on si de rat io n o f th e p art ie s’ br ie fs , we den y

th e p et it io n. PETI TI ON DENI ED.

We have a dopted Fif

th Circuit prece dent dec ided bef ore the Circuit splitin 1981 as 1 binding a s binding on this court. Bonner v. City of Pritchard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (e n banc) . 14